Le lundi 24 janvier 2005 Å 16:16 -0500, Tim Boland a Å¥crit :
> (1) Is consideration given to non-W3C documents/specifications (from other
> accredited standards organizations)? In particular, ATAG2.0 currently
> normatively references ISO16071..
I'm not sure what you mean by "giving consideration" in this context.
Could you clarify?
> (2) Is the concept of a CSS3 Module (which isn't entirely like some other
> W3C specifications) fully included? In particular, CSS3 Modules have
> specific sections titled
> "Dependencies With Other CSS3 Modules" near the beginnings of the documents..
This would fall under requirement 4.1 B, which has as specific
technique:
"Is the subdivision dependent upon other subdivisions (that is, if it is
implemented must others also be implemented)?"
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/#subdivide-mandatory-tech
> (3) Is it recommended to mention in a specification the activity(ies) that
> the specification is under, as well as which WG(s) created the specification?
> For example, CSS3 Backgrounds and Borders Module mentions that "document is
> produced by CSS WG, part of the Style Activity "(with a link to that
> activity, so that the reader has an overall context for accessing the
> document)..
This already defined as part of the publication rules
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/02-pubrules.html
> (4) Are alternative ways of technology implementation addressed? For
> example, for rendering of very simple math, one might consider using CSS if
> one doesn't have MathML installed, but if one wants more robust/complete
> math rendering,
> get and implement MathML..
I don't think we address this; what do you think should be said on this
topic?
Dom
--
Dominique HazaÅœl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org